Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 121-R of 1975, decided on 31st March, 1985.

---S. 2(2)--"Pending proceedings"--Connotation--"Pending proceedings", held, would mean proceedings which were being heard, tried or considered by any authority--Where, however, a proceeding is yet to be taken to higher authority, same could not be called "pending proceedings".--[Words and phrases].

Muslim High School v. Asghari Khanam 1984 S C M R 332 fol.

---Art. 199--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), Preamble--Repeal of evacuee laws--Object Intention of repealing Act XIV of 1975, held, was that after specified date viz. 1-7-1974, no fresh revision coup- be brought before the Settlement Authority--Rejection of such revision filed long after coming into force of Act XIV of 1975 being neither illegal nor without legal authority could not be interfered with by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

Abdus Sattar for Petitioners.

M.M. Rahim for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 31st March, 1985.

Mst. Umrawan widow of Muhammad who hates since died and is now being represented by her legal representatives and Mst. Resham Bibi daughter of Muhammad filed this writ petition praying that the order, dated 5-5-1975 passed by Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur (respondent No. 9) dismissing their revision petition filed after coming into force of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the Repeal Act) as not maintainable be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The relevant facts leading to this writ petition briefly are that one Muhammad, a displaced person, filed claim for agricultural land abandoned by him in India. He died on 7-1-1951, leaving behind three brothers, namely, Muhammad Hayat, Noor Hassan and Noor Muhammad besides his daughter Mst. Resham Bibi and his wife Mst. Umrawan petitioners. A mutation of inheritance of Muhammad (deceased right holder) No. 19 was sanctioned on 4-7-1961 under para 46-A of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme in favour of petitioners and the brothers of Muhammad (deceased) and consequently some agricultural land in Chak No. 176/Murad Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar was allotted against the said claim. Mst. Elahi Sain and Mst. Arshan filed time-barred appeal complaining that they being genuine widow and daughter of aforesaid Muhammad respectively were entitled to inherit from the property of Muhammad, but have been unjustifiably deprived of their legal shares. Learned Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur accepting the appeal remanded the case for fresh decision to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner who in turn affirmed his previous decision and remarked that respondents should go to civil Court. However, Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Bahawalnagar again on appeal reversed Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner's order saying that it was for the petitioner rather to establish in the civil Court that Mst. Elahi Sain (respondent No. 1) had been divorced by, Muhammad (deceased) and that Mst. Arshan (respondent No. 2) was not his daughter. This decision was upheld by the Rehabilitation Commissioner in revision on 13-9-1963. The petitioners then filed a suit for declaration that Mst. Elahi- Said end Mst. Arshan (respondents) were not entitled to inherit from Muhammad. The respondents (defendants in that suit) objected that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try this question. The learned Civil Judge, held, that lie had jurisdiction and ultimately passed decree against the respondents, who having remained unsuccessful in appeal before District Judge, filed second appeal in the High Court which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the former West Pakistan High Court holding that civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. A letters patent appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Being aggrieved the petitioners filed petition for special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court which was refused on 6-6-1974 on the ground that civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. In the concluding para of the judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court made following observation:--

"If the Settlement Authorities feel that the decision of the civil Court to which they had themselves referred the parties is of any assistance to them, then it is for them to take that into consideration. The parties can urge this before the Settlement or Rehabilitation Authorities when this question of inheritance is being considered by the said authorities. This does not give jurisdiction to the civil Courts in view of the express ouster of such jurisdiction under the provisions of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws."

Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur, by way of revision, which was filed admittedly after coming into force of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, praying to reconsider that whether Mst. Elahi Sain and Mst. Arshan are entitled to inherit as heirs of Muhammad (deceased right holder) in the light of the findings of the civil Court in compliance with the observation of the Supreme Court. The learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order, dated 5-5-1975 dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was not maintainable after the repeal of Evacuee Laws as it were not "pending proceedings". This order has been challenged in this writ petition. I have heard the parties.

3. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that they were directed by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities to seek a verdict from the civil Court as to whether the respondents were heirs of Muhammad (deceased right holder) or not which they did and Supreme Court's remarks in the concluding paragraph of its judgment quoted above by implication remanded the matter, therefore, it must be treated as "proceedings pending" in the meaning of section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1974, and, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 5-5-1975 refusing to consider question of inheritance is without lawful authority. I have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court carefully. It has been clearly laid down therein that Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme was a complete code in itself and, therefore, all questions of inheritance, etc., ought to be decided by Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities and the jurisdiction of civil Court in such matters is expressly ousted. It was also remarked therein that any decision of the civil Court on such points would be "no more than a pious resolution and a mere essay in futility". In concluding para of the judgment their Lordships of Supreme Court observed that finding of the civil Court, in their discretion, may be considered by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities when the question of inheritance is being considered by the said Authorities. But the controversy about the inheritance in this case had been set at rest by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner long before vide judgment, dated 5-5-1975 therefor the matter cannot be taken as "pending proceedings with Settlement Authorities. The question that what is "pending proceedings" in the meaning of subsection (2) of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Muslim High School v, Asghari Khanam 1984 S C M R 332 wherein their Lordships clearly laid down that:--

"pending proceedings means proceedings which are being heard, tried or considered by any authority but if any proceeding is yet to be taken to higher authority it cannot be called the pending proceedings."

It was further observed that the intention of repealing Act of 1975 clearly was that after 1-7-1974 no fresh revision petition could be brought before the Settlement Commissioner. In view of these observations, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's order, dated 5-5-1975 impugned in these proceedings cannot be said to be illegal or without legal authority.

4. In the circumstances, this petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. There is, however, no order as to costs.

A.A. / R-12/ L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.